Subject:
|
Re: Reality == fiction?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:49:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
742 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> But I do know this. I at least don't think the reality/fictionality of
> characters is relevant. What is relevant is whether it's clearly not satire,
> and whether it's clearly advocacy. Fail those tests and I'm against it.
> (still protected speech, still OK to create it, just not going to be
> counting me as a fan, that's all)
Clarity, of course, is subjective, and if the humor of a work involves
subtlety, then the intent of the work will become unclear to the less
perceptive.
> what I WOULD ask is that when people post
> things that might take a little analysis by an unquestioning kid to
> ascertain (since I as a parent don't want to *have* to pre-screen Lugnet, I
> pay my membership to keep it as wholesome as practical) that they consider
> suggesting that it's satire and not an advocacy, just to be clear...
Are you suggesting that irony requires an explanatory prefix to avoid
offending or misleading the imperceptive? Kind of a wit-killer.
Take Swift's archetypal ironic essay "A Modest Proposal"
http://www.sincity.com/penn-n-teller/pcc/a-modest-proposal.html
Would this really retain its artistic force if preceded by a careful,
unironic explanation of the socio-political sentiments conveyed, and the
literary techniques used to convey them? Need the author have issued
statements more unambiguously delineating his stance on cannibalism and
infanticide? Or would it have ruined the joke?
Is this essay in poor taste, since it suggests violent acts? Would it be
reasonable to imply that Swift was a proponent of cannibalism or prone to
practice it in real life?
These are High School (Junior High) level questions, people. Let's show some
perception and get beyond them.
As for Protecting the Children, here's an assignment for those of you who
fear a dead Timmy or Jar Jar will corrupt your kids: put together a Lego
Ratings Board. Post a site which labels other sites based on how much
plastic dismemberment, guns, swords, and graphic peg/socket action they
contain. Then concerned parents will have a reservoir of prescreened sites
to show their kids. Sure, it wouldn't be as comprehensive or up to date as
Lugnet. Sucks for you. Just like it sucked for me when I was a kid and my
mom wouldn't let me watch "R" rated movies. It's just the sort of thing that
righteous crusaders have to live with...
Sorry for the ascerbic tone. It's just that this is a killed conversation.
(Yet I'm still adding to it? What kind of lousy hypocrisyis that!)
Oh well.
Josh
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Absolutely not. (...) Of course it would have ruined the "joke." But it isn't fit for the consumption of eight year olds. At least not many of them. (...) I think that people who delight in the graphic representation of infanticide and (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Reality == fiction?
|
| OK, now we get to the heart of the matter that I was trying to put my finger on when I started this... but before I comment on Josh's post let me say this... Todd kind of backpedaled from his statement that he hates JarJar. I don't think he should (...) (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
